Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Year: 1985 Page 3 of about 2,217 results (0.099 seconds)

Jun 25 1985 (HC)

Ramjibhai Dahyabhai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-25-1985

Reported in : [1986]158ITR540(Guj)

..... the assessee. 5. it is in fact in this situation that the following question has been referred to us for our opinion under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 : 'whether the tribunal was right in holding that the land in question was stock-in-trade of the assessee and, therefore, the surplus arising out of the compensation received ..... . 10,329 on the sale of some stock which he wanted to treat as capital gain under section 12b and not as trading profits under section 10 of the indian income- tax act, 1922. the remaining stock, which had come to the share of the assessee, was so] d by him in the assessment year 1961-62, and the ..... , and after deducting this amount from the compensation amount, the capital gains was worked out at rs. 35,634. the income-tax officer was accordingly directed to tax this sum of rs. 35,634. 4. the department, therefore, preferred an appeal before the income-tax appellate tribunal which reversed the order of the appellate assistant commissioner and held for the reasons stated in the order ..... assessment as to whether the surplus arising out of the compensation is to be treated as a business profit or capital gains. the income-tax user held that the surplus arising out of the sale of the land was business income since the land in question was the stock-in-trade of the assessee. he, therefore, held that the aggregate surplus of rs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Ramakrishnan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-1985

Reported in : (1985)49CTR(Mad)165; [1986]160ITR625(Mad)

..... firm in which the hindu undivided family comprised of the assessee and his wife has a share as a beneficial owner cannot be included in the income of the assessee under section 64 of the income-tax act, 1961 ?' 2. however, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that there is any referable question arising from the ..... ) cannot be applied on the facts and circumstances of the case, and that in the case of the reopening of the assessment, the income-tax officer is changing his opinion as regards the application of section 64 of the income-tax act. the assessee also contended that even on merits, there cannot be any reopening of the assessments for there is no question of clubbing ..... an escapement of income by the non-disclosure of the relevant material by the assessee. the proposal for reopening of the assessment was opposed by the assessee on the ..... partnership in the said firm. originally, the income-tax officer assessed the share income of the assessee in the status of a hindu undivided family. he also assessed the share income of the minor partners in their individual hands. later, at the instance of the audit, the income-tax officer reopened the assessments under section 147(a) of the income-tax act on the ground that there has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.i. Rahimtulla

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-10-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)322; [1986]160ITR784(Bom); [1986]26TAXMAN614(Bom)

..... was one in which the public was substantially interested and the extent of its accumulated profits and thereby to decide whether section 2(6a)(e) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, applied. the income-tax officer found upon this basis that all facts necessary for the assessment had not been disclosed by the assessee at the time of the original assessment and that, ..... this case need to be set out in some detail. the original assessment was reopened by a notice served upon the assessee under section 34(1a) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, by the income-tax officer, central, bombay. in the reassessment order that followed, he recorded that, subsequent to the original assessment, information was received that there had been an escapement of ..... words 'omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year' in section 34 of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (which words are also used in section 147 of the income-tax act, 1961), postulated 'a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. what facts are material ..... accumulated profits ?20. it is necessary for the purposes of understanding the respective contentions to set out the provisions of sections 2(6a)(e) and 12(1b) of the indian income-tax act, 1922. the said section provided as follows :'2. (6a) 'dividend' includes - ...(e) any payment by a company, not being a company, in which the public are substantially interested within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bhaktawar Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)5; [1986]162ITR452(Bom); [1986]27TAXMAN7(Bom)

..... the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'.'6. it was contended on behalf of the revenue by mr. dhanuka that section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, contemplated both the letting of a building and the letting of a plant. in the instant case there was no letting of the installation. section 56(2)(iii), therefore, ..... .11. there being no letting of the installation, the requirements of section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961, were not met. accordingly, the income derived by the assessee form the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. it must be taxed as income from property.12. great reliance was placed by mrs. jagtiani upon the aforesaid decision of the supreme court ..... the agreements of the air-conditioning installation. the provisions of section 56(2)(ii) of the income-tax act, 1961, do not, therefore, apply, accordingly, the income derived by the assessee from the premises under the leases cannot be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' but must be taxed as income from property. the question is so answered.18. there shall be no order as to ..... granted. the issue was whether the two lettings were inseparable so as to attract the provisions of section 56(2)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961.15. the decision of the karnataka high court in d. c. shah v. cit : [1979]118itr419(kar) is of much assistance here. a lease was given to the state bank of india of a building. air-conditioning .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. F.Y. Khambaty

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-18-1985

Reported in : (1986)50CTR(Bom)275; [1986]159ITR203(Bom); [1980]24TAXMAN29(Bom)

..... the ground that the residential status of the individual alone has to be considered and not of his wife and children for the purpose of section 64(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessee, f. y. khambaty, was a partner in the firm of m/s. f. y. khambaty & sons, kano, nigeria (referred to hereinafter as 'the said firm'). among ..... the tribunal that the aforesaid question has been referred to us. we may point out that it is common ground that the assessee had other income in respect of which he was liable to be taxed under the income-tax act in all the aforesaid assessment years. before considering the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be useful to take note of the relevant ..... the use of the said expression shows is that in considering what is total income under section 5, one has to exclude such income as is excluded from the scope of total income by reason of any other provision of the income-tax act and not that the other provisions of the income-tax act override the provisions of section 5 as suggested by mr. jetley. if we were ..... provisions of the income-tax act, 1961. sub-section (1) of section 64 of the said act, as it stood at the relevant time, provided for the inclusion of certain incomes in the total income of the assessee. relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of section 64 read as follows :'64. (1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-05-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)338; [1986]160ITR650(Bom)

..... relevant portion of para 2 of that order runs as follows :'in making any assessment under the indian income-tax act, 1922, all depreciation actually allowed under any laws or rules of a part b state relating to income-tax and super-tax, or any law relating to tax on profits of business, shall be taken into account in computing the aggregate depreciation allowance referred to in ..... of the buildings, machinery, etc., of the assessee for calculating the depreciation allowance under section 10(2)(vi) of the indian income-tax act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the act of 1922'). the assessee relied upon section 10(5)(b) of the act of 1922 and contended that the original cost of the machinery, etc., should be taken into account for calculation of depreciation ..... in this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, is as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy and charge under the industrial tax rules, 1927, which had the force of law in the erstwhile holkar state of indore amounted to income-tax or super-tax or tax on profits of business ?'2. the facts : hukumchand mills ..... down value for the purpose of calculating depreciation under the indian income-tax act of 1922. it was urged by him that the nomenclature as an industrial tax was not material and the true nature of the tax shows that it was levied on the income or profits. the circumstance that it was levied on the income or profits of a particular industry was not material.10 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ibm World Trade Corporation

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-20-1985

Reported in : (1986)52CTR(Bom)64; [1986]161ITR673(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN305(Bom)

..... bharucha, j.1. these are references under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, made at the instance of the revenue. two common questions are posed, namely :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ..... been imposed. the assessee, therefore, with the permission of the reserve bank, repatriated an amount of $ 49,500. this resulted in a surplus which the income-tax officer assessed as the assessee's profit arising incidental to the carrying on of its business. when the matter reached the supreme court, it was held that the ..... and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the ground at 2 above, the learned appellate assistant commissioner ought to have upheld the income-tax officer's contention that unmerited head office expenses represented funds that were retained in india and were used in india as working capital and, therefore, the ..... the head office the amounts due on this account for the reserve bank's permission therefor had not been obtained. this was because the assessee's income-tax assessments were not completed. on june 6, 1966, the amount on account of administrative and overhead expenses unmerited to the head office and standing to ..... head office.6. the liability of the assessee to pay its share of administrative and overhead expenses to the head office has been considered by the income-tax officer year after year to be allowable revenue expenditure. although this allowance had been granted from year to year, the assessee had not been able to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-30-1985

Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Bom)228; [1987]163ITR560(Bom)

..... kania, actg. c.j.1. these six references under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, arise on a common statement of the case. the questions referred to in the said references are substantially similar. in these circumstances, ..... however, this does not make any difference as far as the question before us is concerned, because it is common ground that both the parties have acted pursuant to this draft agreement. the said corporation has supplied know-how under the said draft agreement and the assessee has made payments under the draft agreement. ..... as of a capital nature and in support of that argument he placed strong reliance on the decision in the case of fenner woodroffe & co. ltd. v. cit : [1976]102itr665(mad) . that is the decision of a division bench of the madras high court. unfortunately, that decision does not help mr. jetly in ..... nature and the payments made by it were allowable as revenue expenditure. the division bench placed strong reliance on the decision of a division bench of this court in cit v. tata engineering & locomotive co. pvt. ltd. : [1980]123itr538(bom) . in that decision, this court has pointed out that technical know-how cannot be ..... and the dispute is whether these payments are permissible as revenue deductions. in this regard, a division bench of this court in kirloskar pneumatic co. ltd. v. cit : [1982]136itr746(bom) , considered this very question which is before us. that case related to certain payments by the assessee before us to the very same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narandas and Sons

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-23-1985

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR415; (1986)51CTR(Bom)91; [1986]162ITR599(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN67(Bom)

..... & sons, a case of the very assessee before us, reported in : [1978]115itr587(bom) . in that case, the act with which the court was concerned was the indian income-tax act, 1922, but there is no dispute that the scheme of assessment under that act and the income-tax act, 1961, is the same. in that judgment, this court relied upon the decision of the supreme court in ..... disputes are common judgment.2. the respondent-assessee is a firm carrying of business in bombay. the said firm consists of two partners and was duly registered under the indian income-tax act, 1922. the said firm was a dealer in government securities which formed its stock-in-trade. it appears that as pointed out by the assessee to the ..... the supreme court referred to above have been rendered in connection with the indian income-tax act, 1922, it is an undisputed position that the scheme of computation and assessment of total income under the said act is similar to the scheme of computation of total income and its assessment under the income-tax act, 1961, and hence the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision must apply to ..... the accountant-general. the assessee claimed that the said amount represented interest on securities covered under section 8 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, and the assessee was entitled to credit for tax deducted in respect thereof under section 18 of that act. it was held that as the securities were transferred in the name of the assessee, it was the fund that owned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1985 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. O.P. Monga

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-09-1985

Reported in : (1986)51CTR(Bom)22; [1986]162ITR224(Bom); [1986]24TAXMAN56(Bom)

..... : [1981]127itr97(all) and these observation (at page 102) :'it, therefore, follows that the expression 'building owned by the assessee' in section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, has not been used in the sense of the property, complete title in which vests in the assessee. the assessee will be considered to be an owner of ..... these facts into account, the tribunal could not but conclude that the assessee was the owner of 'the property' for the purpose of section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, and was, therefore, entitled to depreciation thereon. the said deed read with the subsequent letters, it said, could well be treated as a sale with ..... and that the assessee had thereunder become the equitable or beneficial owner of the said shed. the tribunal referred to the provisions of section 32 of the income-tax act, 1961, and noted that the question for consideration was whether the assessee could be said to own the said shed within the meaning of that provision. ..... unknown; there was but one owner, namely, the legal owner; that the expression 'income from property' used in the income-tax act, 1961, referred to the income of the legal owner of the property; and that he was the only person assessable to tax on that basis. this court reiterated that this position remained unchanged by the decision ..... bharucha, j.1. this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, raises a question at the instance of the revenue. it reads thus :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //